« AnteriorContinuar »
be delivered. But to destroy him by active fellow-creature as ourselves,” whatever be means, or to push him into a pit, or such-like his religion. They have thus made an things, is forbidden, as he is not at war with involuntary acknowledgment of the supeus."** The Lord Jesus does not say that the riority of the New Testament, and of the man who went down from Jerusalem to Je benefit which it has been to the world. Just richo was an idolater. He only says, “ a suppose, for a moment, that the Scribes and certain man.” But he evidently intimates Pharisees had succeeded in extirpating the that he was such, for if he had been a Jew, doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth, what would the priest and the Levite would not have have been the consequence to you and to the passed him without rendering assistance. As world ? Had the doctrines of Jesus perished, he was only an idolater, according to the oral the oral law would have had an undisturbed law, the priest and the Levite were not and universal domination, for the Karaites have simply not to blame in leaving him to his always been few in number, and have never fate, but were obeying a command. They exerted any influence on mankind at large. saw him perishing-near to death. They | The Jews in France. Bavaria. a
The Jews in France, Bavaria, as well as in did not use any violence to accelerate it. | England and elsewhere, would all have known They only looked at him, and left him the law only according to the oral interpreta. to perish. So far, then, the lawyer who tion, and consequently would not have under. asked the question thought that the priest stood the command, " Thou shalt love thy and Levite were in the right. But then the neighbour as thyself." They would still have Lord Jesus introduces a Samaritan, whom the held the fearful doctrine, that a perishing oral law also looks upon as an idolater, and idolater was not to be helped. They would, showing how he acted, he appeals to the plain moreover, have had none but idolaters around common sense of the questioner, “ Which of them, for all the knowledge of God that prethese three was neighbour to him that fell | vails amongst us Gentiles comes from Jesus among thieves ?” And the lawyer is com- of Nazareth. Jew and Gentile, then, would pelled to acknowledge, “He that showed have lived “ hateful and hating each other." mercy.” We make a similar appeal to the You may think, perhaps, that some mighty. advocates of the oral law. We ask, which is, spirit would have burst the chains of tra. the oral law or the New Testament, the most dition, and reasserted the simple truth of like the law of God? The oral law forbids God. But such an event is altogether be. you to help a poor dying fellow-creature in yond the limits of probability. One of the his hour of need, because he is an idolater. mightiest intellects that ever dwelt in a teneIt commands you to stifle the natural in. ment of clay was that of Moses, the son of stinct of the human heart, which is indeed Maimon; a man whose learning and industry the voice of the God of nature-to be- were equal to his genius. If ever there was a hold the agonizing struggles, and hear the Jew, who was likely to overcome the prejudices heartrending cries of a drowning fellow of tradition, it was he. And yet with all his sinner, and yet when you have it in your genius and all his opportunities, he never was power to snatch him from the jaws of death, able to arrive at the true sense of the command and from that everlasting destruction which which we have just considered. The atro. awaits him, to leave him to his fate, without cious passages, which we have above discussed,
cious passages, which we har help and without pity. The New Testament, are all taken from his compendium of the on the contrary, tells you, that though, by oral law. You are indebted, then, to Jesus his idolatry, he has incurred the wrath of God, of Nazareth for your deliverance from this yet he is your neighbour-that it is your duty foul error. With respect to your duty to your to help him, and by that very help to endea neighbour, your own brethren in France and vour to lead him to the truth. Which then Bavaria confess, that you are right if you agrees with the law of God? We are quite follow Jesus of Nazaraeth, and that you are sure that the language of your heart is, the wrong if you follow those who rejected him. New Testament is right. The oral law is | Remember, then, that your duty to your wrong. Your brethren in France and Bavaria neighbour is half of the whole law of God, have already proclaimed that opinion to the and examine whether the Christians, who are world. In the answer of the Jewish deputies confessedly right in the second table of the law, to Napoleon and in the Bavarian Catechism, do not, also, possess the truth respecting the they have said, “ that we are to love our first.
• Hilchoth Accum, c. s. I.
London : Sold at the Londou Society's Office, 16, Exeter-hall, Strand; by James Duncan, Paternoster
row; and by B. Wertheim, 57, Aldersgate-street. This publication may be bad by applying at No. 5, No. 7. or No. 13, Palestine-place, Bethnal-green.
עמדו על דרכים וראו ושאלו לנתבות עולם: ירמיה ו טז
Any one, who considers the circumstances / selves? We have shown that the evidence of the Jewish people after the desolation of adduced on this point by the French and Bathe first temple, will be inclined to make varian Jews, proves the contrary; and is great allowances for the spirit of the rabbi- | therefore, nothing to the purpose. But we nical laws against idolaters. Idolatry was not do not wish to rest the decision upon such to them a mere system of religious error. It limited proof, even though it be strong ; we was the source of all their misfortunes; and are willing to look at the whole system, and idolaters were the destroyers of their country to compare it with the law and the prophets, - the desolaters of their temple and their which we all admit as divine authority. We own most cruel and tyrannical oppressors. say, then, that the Talmud not only does not Scarcely had they emerged from the horrors of teach us to love all our fellow-men, but that the Babylonish captivity, when they were ex. | it puts idolaters altogether without the pale of posed to the insults and outrages as well as humanity. We have seen already that it the persecutions of Antiochus; and hardly forbids its followers to save the life of a pehad they recovered from the havoc of his fury, rishing idolater. But it goes farther still, and before they were overrun by the fierce and extends this precept even to an idolater's inhaughty Romans, who were at last the execu. fant, which knows not its right-hand from its tioners of the wrath of the Almighty. They left.
בת ישראל לא תניק את בנה של נכרית מפני שמגדלת | not only saw the abominations of idolatry
מכאן אתה למד שאסור לרפאו' עובדי כוכבים ומזלות | אפילו בשכר ואם היה מתיירא מהן או שהיה חושש
they felt the hard hand of the idolater; no 37 nx non in Sign 2015 may 12 wonder, then, if they hated the man as well as the system. In the Hilchoth Rotzeach there is a law which amply illustrates the
“ A daughter of Israel shall not suckle the misery of their situation, and the habitual
son of a heathen woman, because that would treatment which they received from idolaters.
be to bring up a son for idolatry; neither According to this law, “ It is forbidden to a
shall she act as midwife to a heathen idolatress.
But if she should, it must be for pay, on acJew to be alone with Gentiles, for they are
count of the enmity (that might otherwise be suspected of shedding blood ; neither is a Jew
excited).” (Hilchoth Accum., c. ix. 16.) What to join company with them in the way; if he
is meant by “pay, on account of the enmity,” meet a Gentile, he is to cause him to pass on his right-hand (that the Jew, as the com
is fully explained in the following passage, mentary says, may be able to defend himself,
which forbids a rabbinical physician to cure a in case the Gentile should make an attempt on
sick idolater ;his life); if they be ascending a height, or going down a descent, the Jew is not to be below and the Gentile above him ; but the Jew above and the Gentile below, lest he | “ Hence thou learnest, that it is forbidden to should fall upon him to kill him ; neither is cure idolaters even for pay. But if (an Ishe to stoop down before him, lest he should raelite) is afraid of them, or is anxious on break his skull.” What an affecting picture account of enmity, he may cure them for pay; does this present of the Jews under heathen but to do it gratuitously is forbidden." Hence domination; and who can wonder if such
the commonest offices of humanity are fortreatment called forth the natural feelings of bidden. But the Talmud goes further still, the human heart, and dictated laws in the and prohibits even the giving of good advice same fierce and merciless spirit ? We, for
to these outcasts. our part, are quite ready to admit and to de. plore the mighty provocations, which roused the spirit of retaliation in the rabbies, and consequently, to make all due allowance for the men. But that is not the question before us.
| " It is forbidden to give good advice to a We are inquiring whether their religious heathen or to a wicked slave. . ... Daniel system, the oral law, is or is not from God, was exposed to danger for no other reason and whether this religious system teaches than this, that he advised Nebuchadnezzar to Jews to love all their fellow-men as theni. give alms, as it is written, "Wherefore, O
ואסור להשיא עצה טובה לגוי או לעדר רשע • ... ולא נתנסה דניאל אלא על שהשיא עצה טובה לנבוכדנצר ליתן צדקה • שנאמר להן מלכא מלכי ישפר עלך :.
king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee.' | unto his neighbour.'" Hilchoth Gezelah, c. i. Daniel iv. 23, in English 27.)* A more 7. So that the reason here assigned why the striking instance of the spirit of the Talmud Gentile is not to get the fifth part in addition, can hardly be found. Nebuchadnezzar was is, because he is not a neighbour. In like the benefactor of Daniel, and had elevated him manner, in the with chapter of this same from the situation of a captive to the first dig. treatise, which treats of the restoration of things nity of the empire; and Daniel had not found, it is expressly commanded to restore refused, but voluntarily taken upon himself whatever belongs to a Jew, because he is a the duties and responsibilities of the king's brother ; but to keep whatever belongs to an chief adviser. Under such circumstances, an idolater, because he is not a brother. ordinary reader of the Bible would imagine 1097 72858 Toy niya 587097 778 nOwn that Daniel was bound by every tie of gra
: Daun titude to his benefactor, of duty and fidelity
"To restore to an Israelite any thing that to his sovereign, to give him the best advice in
he has lost, is an affirmative commandment, his power. No, says the Talmud. If the
| for it is said, “Thou shalt in any case bring man be an idolater, gratitude, duty, and fide
them again unto thy brother.' (Deut. xxii. 1.) lity are out of the question ; and because Daniel exercised those godlike graces, he was punished. It appears, at all events, on the Talmud's own showing, that Daniel was not
אבידת גוי עובד ע'ז מותרת שנאמר אבידת אחיך • והמחזירה הרי זה עובר עבירה מפני שהוא מחזק ידי | רשעי עולם • ואם החזירה לקדש את השם כדי שיפארו את ישראל וידעו שהם בעלי אמונה הרי זה משובח : | a Talmudist
הגונב את הגוי או שגנב נכסי הקדש אינו משלם אלא הקרן בלבד שנאמר ישלם שנים לרעהו • לרעהו
to prove, that the Talmud altogether excludes " Any thing that a Gentile has lost is idolaters from all benefit of the command, lawful, for it is said, " With all lost things of “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." | thy brother's.' (Deut xxii. 3.) And he that The system which makes it unlawful to restores it transgresses a transgression, for he save his life, to cure his sickness, to suckle strengthens the hands of the wicked of the his child, to help his wife in the hour of world. But if he restore it in order to sanctify nature's trial, or even to give him good advice, the Name, that they may think well of Israel, can scarcely be said to teach us to love all our and know that they are honest people, this is fellow-men, without any regard to religious praiseworthy.” In these passages (and many differences. It may, however, be said, that more might be added if it were necessary) it the passages adduced lead to this conclusion is plainly taught that an idolatrous Gentile is only by inference, and that none of them ex. not to be regarded as “our neighbour,” or our pressly declares that an idolater is not our | brother. We think then that we have fully neighbour. We shall, therefore, add a few proved that the Jewish deputies in France, and passages where this is plainly taught.
the compilers of the Jewish Catechism in Bavaria, did not learn their exposition of the
command, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as mas su 97995.77075
thyself” from the Talmud; neither in the
| particular passage which they quote, nor from " He that steals from a Gentile, or he that
the general principles of the Talmudic system. steals property devoted to sacred purposes, is only | We have already stated our belief that they to pay the principal: for it is said, “He shall | learned that exposition from the New Testapay double unto his neighbour.' (Exod. 'xxii.
ment, for there it is taught plainly and re. 8, English 9.) To his neighbour, not to de.
peatedly. We quoted, in proof, a parable voted property. To his neighbour, and not spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ. We shall to u Gentile.” (Hilchoth Genevah., c. ii. 1.) / now add a few more passages in confirmation. The same decision is given with respect to
As to showing kindness to all our fellowthe law found Levit. v. 20 (in English, vi. 1), men, the New Testament teaches us to make " If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against no exception with regard to idolaters, or others the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour, .... who have not the same creed, but gives the all that about which he has sworn falsely; he following general rules :-“ As we have, shall even restore it in the principal, and therefore, opportunity, let us do good UNTO shall add the fifth part more thereto.” The
ALL MEN, especially unto them that are of oral law says
the household of faith.” (Gal. vi. 10.) “ See
that no man render evil for evil UNTO ANY
: 1n9ya U1731 10x30 MAN ; but ever follow that which is good both 6. He that sweareth to a Gentile must pay the among yourselves, and to ALL MEN.” (1 principal, but is not bound to add the fifth Thess. v. 15.) - The Lord make you to inpart-(why not?) because it is said, “and lie crease and abound IN LOVE one toward
another, and TOWARD ALL MEN:” (1. Thess. * Hilchoth Rotzeach, c. xii. 15. See also Bava iii. 12.) You observe that in these general Bathra, fol. iv. col. 1., about the middle of the page, I rules the New Testament makes no reserva. where the punishment of Daniel is more fully discussed.
I tion with respect to idolaters, or epicureans,
or heretics, or any other of those unfortunate covenant with, nor shew mercy unto the beings whom the Talmud outlaws from all (Deut. vii. 1, 2.) Here the commands the common charities of humanity. It com- cise, and is as much violated by extend mands us to do good to all—and that not to to those, to whom God has not extended avoid enmity, nor for the sake of the by refusing to execute it on these, ways of peace, nor because we are afraid, nor has here designated as the justic because we wish them to speak well of us, wrath. and to be thought honest people, but because | 2dly, The oral law is wrong in this it is our duty. The New Testament requires application, for it contradicts the of its followers, not only to abstain - from God expressly distingimuste active violence” in injuring them, but to do and the other nation active good in assisting them, and the examples, nigh unto a city to fight agam which it proposes for our imitation, are of the claim peace unto it and same character as the precepts which it im- make thee answer of poses upon our obedience. It sets before us thee, then it shall be, that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the traditionists is found therein suat crucified, praying for his murderers, and thee, and they shall saying, “ Father, forgive them; for they know shalt thou do antoi not what they do"-and Stephen, his first far from thes, which martyr, interceding for them that stoned him, these nations. But
Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” And ple, which the Lord Paul, whose feelings to those who differed for an inheritance, from him in religion are thus expressed, that treatieti s “ Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer then the time to God for Israel is that they may be saved.” Canaanite It sets before us the disciples of the Lord Jesus the Jet healing the diseases of all who applied, commanded without reference to their religious opinions, the first see (Acts xix. 11). We repeat our question, then, which system is according to the truth eat and the will of God, the Talmud, or the New reso Testament? Your brethren in France and Bavaria have declared, by adopting the New Testament exposition, that it is right; and by rejecting the intolerant principle which per vades the oral law, that the oral law is wrong We trust that your hearts respond to their de clarations. But we do not rest the design on the natural feelings of the heart, we appel to Moses and the prophets.
The question is, do the laws, when a gave respecting the idolatrous tatous Canaan, apply to all other idolaters, all circumstances ? The oral law assens question in the affirmative, and one source of all those revolting laws which have just considered. But the mal wrong : 1st, Because it draws 3 clusion from a particular case,
cher trary to all sound reasoning, Tits
or let mand to destroy these natágus
elachim, liar appears from the coast
extraor does not speak generally of
mits that but only of certain nations
Hen upo -“ When the Lord they
Lofth thee into the land, wittest
anot sess it, and hath cast thee, the Hititas, the Amorites, me te Perrizzites, and the Bea seven nations great and when the Lost before the free
we his cu utterly desting
Talmudic command, he administered it gruol dist, but considered it his duty to save the tuitously; and Gehazi, for acting in confor- lives of perishing idolaters, even when nothing mity to Talmudic ordinance, and making the was to be feared or to be gained. If, on the idolater pay, was smitten with the leprosy. other hand, he did not know of the fish, he (2 Kings v. 20.) In like manner, when the must have expected a watery grave, whether Syrian host was miraculously led into Samaria, the idolaters threw him into the sea, or and the King of Israel proposed to act as a whether he waited until the ship went to Talmudist and smite them, the man of God pieces. In this case, also, if a Talmudist, answered, “ Thou shalt not smite them ; it would have been his duty to have stayed wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast where he was, and if he perished, die in the taken with thy sword and bow ? Set bread fulfilment of the command, to show no mercy and water before them, that they may eat and to idolaters. But he did not-he had com. drink and go to their master. ” (2 Kings vi. passion on them, and, to save their lives, re21, 22.) This answer is important, as it not linquished his only chance of safety, by telling only furnishes an example, but exhibits the them to throw him into the sea. It is plain, principle, according to which idolatrous cap. therefore, that Jonah was not a Talmudist. tives, not Canaanites, were to be treated. The We have here, then, three inspired prophets, prophet appeals to the general rule, “ Wouldest Daniel, Elisha, and Jonah, all bearing a practhou smite those whoin thou hast taken captive tical testimony against the Talmudic prin. with thy sword and bow?” Even then, as they ciple, which extends God's law against the are not Canaanites, they ought not to be Canaanites to all idolaters, and under all cirsmitten ; therefore, in this case much more, cumstances. they ought to be treated with mercy. We Lastly, we have the testimony of the God have still another instance of a prophet acting of Israel himself. He who gave the command contrary to the oral law, and in conformity to destroy the Canaanites on account of their with the New Testament interpretation. The exceeding wickedness, shows by his own prophet Jonah once saw idolaters " nigh unto dealings with the world, that this case is an death,” and ready to sink in the great deep, exception to the general rule, for " The but he had mercy on them, and pointed out Lord is good to all, and his mercies are the means of deliverance. When he fed from over all his works." He provides food the presence of the Lord, the mariners in whose and clothing for the idolater, as well as for ship he sailed were idolaters ; for when the those who worship him in truth; or, as storm raged, it is said, “ They cried' every | the New Testament says, “ He maketh man unto his god.” In their anguish they his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, said unto him, “ What shall we do unto thee, and sendeth rain on the just and the unthat the sea may be calm unto us?” In other just." (Matt. vi. 45.) He, then, whose words, “What shall we do to save our lives ?" conduct most resembles that of his Creator, is, Now if Jonah had been a Talmudist, it would beyond all doubt, the nearest to the truth. have been plainly not his duty to have told The Talmud, therefore, is wrong, and the them, but to have allowed the sea to rage on New Testament explanation of the com. until the ship went to pieces, and he had the mand, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as satisfaction of seeing the idolaters go to the thyself,” is right. We ask the Jews, then, to bottom. This would have been an act of account for this fact, that Jesus of Nazareth obedience to a precise command, and could was right, and those who condemned him have made no difference to Jonah. For, as to wrong, respecting one-half of the whole law. himself, there are two suppositions possible, And we ask, moreover, those Jews who abhor either he knew that the Lord had prepared a the above Talmudic principles, how they can fish to swallow him, or he knew it not. If conscientiously join in the synagogue prayers, he knew it, then he was secure of his own which ascribe to the Talmud Divine authority ? safety, and would have known that the fish We ask them why, at the very least, they could find him out just as readily if the ship have never publicly protested against these went to pieces, as if the idolaters threw him enormities; but allow their brethren through into the sea. It would, therefore, have been the world to remain victims to a system, which doubly his duty to conceal from the idolaters not only contradicts the written law of God, the means of deliverance. On this supposition, | but outrages all the better feelings of even Jonah's counsel to them can only be accounted fallen humanity ? for on the principle that he was not a Talmu.
London :- Sold at the London Society's Office, 16, Exeter-hall, Strand: by James Duncan, Paternoster
row; and by B. Wertheim, 57, Aldersgate-street. This publication may be had by applying at No.5, No. 7, or No. 13, Palestine-place, Bethnal-green.